Thursday, March 01, 2012

The passing of conservatives.

My conservative friends often think that I'm a damned liberal, and my liberal friends either think that I'm an uber-conservative fascist pig, or that I'm a bag of self-contradictions.
Let me make this clear: I don't take my stance to be contrary, or to "stand out and be different." I would LOVE to be able to side with a great big majority.

But right now, the two majorities are:
--people who think that it's more fair, and even intellectual, to distribute everything but rights.
--people who think that we should not distribute the wealth, but still should assert control over others' rights.

I've said all this before.
Lately, I've been thinking how great it would be to see an openly atheist or agnostic candidate run for President. I think all of the discussions about a candidate's fitness to lead, based upon his religion, are bollocks. Given that I want the President not to impose his religion upon the nation, I'd prefer him or she to keep their yap shut on the issue. The same goes with information about his marriage.

Let's do this, shall we? Let's get to reducing the interference that the government has in our lives, and reducing the expenditures. Let's just drop the social issues for a bit, shall we?

And while we're at it (and Republicans, I'm talking to you, because even though you're screwed beyond belief with your mix of social interference and laissez-faire party planks, you're still the only big party willing to attempt to be the Grownups in the room, so I lean faintly in your direction.), let's quit listening to idiots like Rush Limbaugh, who had me at "why should I pay?" (a legit question) but lost me at "lemme see you nekkid."

Oh, and finally, as a person who leans TEA Party and Libertarian, I propose that we mourn the untimely passing of Andrew Breitbart. He raised interesting points, and flew in the faces even of a lot of Conservatives. He challenged the status quo. His passing diminishes the exchange.

8 Comments:

I don't really want to speak ill of the recently-dead, but Breitbart played too close to the line for me. Okay, he went well over the line, and more than once. He was dishonest, trying to get people to believe things that weren't true. He did much that hurt the cause of conservatism that he claimed to support through his dishonesty.

But his friends and family loved him, and they're sad to be without him. And most of all, none of us (especially me) is perfect, so...rest in peace, Andrew. Many people are sad to not have you in this world any longer.

I can't stand the Repukelicans only a little less than I can't stand the Demoncrats. How about a "leave everybody the hell alone" party. I don't care about abortions or who has sex with who or in how big a group. I don't care what someone puts in their body, be it drugs, "natural" supplements, or diet regimen. I don't care what color my neighbor paint his house or what he has for landscaping.Both parties are wildly pro nanny state, one is a bit more honest about it. Just how much did government shrink under St. Ronald?Anybody that thinks Ron Paul is a viable alternative to the current insanity hasn't been paying attention.

For all his flaws, Breitbart encouraged people to peek behind the curtain when they thought something smelled. That's something (D) s and (R)s should be doing, as well as libertarians, Communists, and whoever else.

Look at the Pigford mess, for example. Whatever you think of the original complaints, it reached the point where someone in a big city can claim that they intended to start a farm but didn't because they were told/ heard/ learned in some other way that the Dept of Ag reps were racist. Therefore, even though the "farmer" has no documentation of efforts to farm, they are entitled to tens of thousands of dollars of compensation? Huh? That sort of thing needs more spotlights, and Breitbart encouraged people to shine them.

Ron Paul as Treasury Secretary, absolutely, I'm all for it. As a matter of fact I'd be for him in charge of any part of domestic policy. Ron Paul in charge of foreign policy would get us killed. Most of the rest of the world do not share Western European values and RP seems to believe that they do. The naive do not make good foreign policy.In my view of limited government defense is one of the few legitimate roles for the Federal Government. If you believe what he says, and I do, Ron Paul is wholly and dangerously unsuited for that duty.